I haven't been to a high school basketball game in 20 years, but if it is setup as you described above, I like it all.
Basketball: Quarters vs Halves
- Thread starter cyfanatic
- Start date
College players aren't as talented at creating their own shot like NBA players. A 24 second clock would lead to a lot of long fadeaways at the end of the shot clock.
I guess 2-20 minutes halves or 4-10 minutes quarters doesn't make much of a difference to me.
Maybe we should go to 1/8's!
Maybe we should go to 1/8's!
That would solve the commercial-break situation, maybe!
Until they decide to add an "under 2:30 timeout" to each quarter.
IDK if you look at data efficiency stats are highest in the first ~10 seconds of the possession then they are flat for about 20 seconds and drop off at the end. The last few seconds of the shot clock are always going to have a drop off because of late clock heaves. Going from 30 to 24 would just eliminate some of the flat section.
I was being a little smart with my reply and I'm not sure I'd support 24, but it's not because of the talent difference. 24 seconds is plenty of time to run efficient offense at the college level. My reason would be pressing is almost non existent in the NBA so against a pressing team 30 seconds is about equivalent to 24 in the NBA. If college went to 24 and teams across the board went to at minimum of a soft press to slow the ball down you'd effectively have something like an 18 second shot clock.
Related note while a huge proponent of a shot clock in high school I do suspect it's going to be awful for a couple years and maybe with some teams awful. Teams there aren't great at getting into offense. Every team should put in some type of slow down press and you could easily make it around 25 seconds before a team gets into their offense. That's pretty tough for a lot of high school skill sets. I was a big fan of it, but I think I would have started at 45 personally.
Efficiency stats are skewed because pretty much all fast break and secondary break scoring occurs in the first ten seconds of the shot clock. Uncontested layups, 2 on 1 breaks and drives/shots against a defense that hasn't set up definitely skew the stats. Having a shorter shot clock isn't going to create more transition opportunities, it is just going to create more of those low efficiency late clock prayers.
30-second clock seems about right for college.
If I were to get creative, I'd drop it to 24 in final 3 or 5 minutes of the game (even 20 seconds in final 3) to reduce need for catch-up fouling. Even that, I'm not sure ... I usually don't favor varied rules for different segments of a game.
If I were to get creative, I'd drop it to 24 in final 3 or 5 minutes of the game (even 20 seconds in final 3) to reduce need for catch-up fouling. Even that, I'm not sure ... I usually don't favor varied rules for different segments of a game.
I understand and that wasn’t the point. The front end would remain the same and so would the back end. The middle part shrinks. I agree if you get to late clock often you will suffer because you will be there more. Teams that play with pace and have efficient offense will be rewarded and I’m good with that (except for this particular year beingan Iowa State fan)
Old thread but here is what Jay Bilas had to say today in an ESPN column about this topic:
Four quarters instead of two halves: Men's college basketball is the only visible form of the game in the world that does not have quarters. It is not a question of remaining unique. Quarters provide more clock plays and allow team fouls to be reset after the first and the third quarters. Moving to quarters will reduce the number of free throws on common fouls, and it will eliminate the one-and-one. A team will reach the bonus after upon the fifth foul of a quarter, and two shots will be awarded upon every common foul thereafter. Some argue that the one-and-one is necessary, but I differ. The argument is that a player must "earn" the second foul shot by making the first. That second shot was earned ... by getting fouled. Remember, the foul limited the offensive team's ability to get two or three points on the possession. This rule change, in my view, is necessary.
www.espn.com
Four quarters instead of two halves: Men's college basketball is the only visible form of the game in the world that does not have quarters. It is not a question of remaining unique. Quarters provide more clock plays and allow team fouls to be reset after the first and the third quarters. Moving to quarters will reduce the number of free throws on common fouls, and it will eliminate the one-and-one. A team will reach the bonus after upon the fifth foul of a quarter, and two shots will be awarded upon every common foul thereafter. Some argue that the one-and-one is necessary, but I differ. The argument is that a player must "earn" the second foul shot by making the first. That second shot was earned ... by getting fouled. Remember, the foul limited the offensive team's ability to get two or three points on the possession. This rule change, in my view, is necessary.
Final Four 2022: Jay Bilas on the state of men's college basketball
College basketball has a huge moment this weekend, with major general interest in these matchups and teams. Here's how the sport must improve to keep the momentum.
I don't know why you would want to break the game up further. Make it so we have 3 half court shots per game, which is what is going on in the womens game. I don't see how the mens game is broke being 2 halves.
I don't know, I like the 2 halves - that is not based on any of the technical details, fairness, or whatever. I like the flow - 2 teams come out to the floor with a game plan in a fast paced game where the players and coaches have to adapt real time. As a fan, I am exhausted after each half and I love it. You get a chance to reset at half. Seems quarters just introduces another timeout?Old thread but here is what Jay Bilas had to say today in an ESPN column about this topic:
Four quarters instead of two halves: Men's college basketball is the only visible form of the game in the world that does not have quarters. It is not a question of remaining unique. Quarters provide more clock plays and allow team fouls to be reset after the first and the third quarters. Moving to quarters will reduce the number of free throws on common fouls, and it will eliminate the one-and-one. A team will reach the bonus after upon the fifth foul of a quarter, and two shots will be awarded upon every common foul thereafter. Some argue that the one-and-one is necessary, but I differ. The argument is that a player must "earn" the second foul shot by making the first. That second shot was earned ... by getting fouled. Remember, the foul limited the offensive team's ability to get two or three points on the possession. This rule change, in my view, is necessary.
Final Four 2022: Jay Bilas on the state of men's college basketball
College basketball has a huge moment this weekend, with major general interest in these matchups and teams. Here's how the sport must improve to keep the momentum.
I think quarters would break that flow up.
As to Bilas' point on having 'earned' the free throws - if you want to follow that argument to the end, then just give them the points. Last I checked, shooting, including free throw shooting, was one of the skills to be rewarded. Last thing we need are a bunch of ConMac and Davisons crashing into the lane every time down the court so they can shoot free throws. Perfectly legitimate strategy to foul poor FT shooters to make them prove their skill at the line and they don't both free throws in a 1 and 1 situation to help them.
Old thread but here is what Jay Bilas had to say today in an ESPN column about this topic:
Four quarters instead of two halves: Men's college basketball is the only visible form of the game in the world that does not have quarters. It is not a question of remaining unique. Quarters provide more clock plays and allow team fouls to be reset after the first and the third quarters. Moving to quarters will reduce the number of free throws on common fouls, and it will eliminate the one-and-one. A team will reach the bonus after upon the fifth foul of a quarter, and two shots will be awarded upon every common foul thereafter. Some argue that the one-and-one is necessary, but I differ. The argument is that a player must "earn" the second foul shot by making the first. That second shot was earned ... by getting fouled. Remember, the foul limited the offensive team's ability to get two or three points on the possession. This rule change, in my view, is necessary.
Final Four 2022: Jay Bilas on the state of men's college basketball
College basketball has a huge moment this weekend, with major general interest in these matchups and teams. Here's how the sport must improve to keep the momentum.
I hadn't thought about elimination of 1-and-1. His point about it is reasonable ... it's another hold-over that we probably cling to unnecessarily. (I'm sure there are arguments to the contrary).
Sans the buzzer, men are at 1/10s right now with a media timeout every 4 minutes.
I don't know how it would work. However, if you want to make the college game better. Have to figure out a way to stop the foul to catch up part. The end of college games take forever and most of the time it don't work. Would love to see a stat on that. Plus, the game comes down to a free throw game instead of a basketball game. My best guess would be like football. You have a right to decline the foul and take the ball out of bounds. I think that would be a dope rule that would allow some strategy to be involved like it is in football.
The foul-to-rally is a continuing dilemma (and discussed within this thread) - coupled with increase in monitor-reviews it's even worse (Bilas addresses that in the roundup linked posted today).
NCAA experimented with the optional out-of-bounds idea (quite a few years ago, can't remember when) and abandoned it almost immediately -- not sure of all the details but I think coaches, players and fans didn't like it. Certainly it could be revisited, and maybe structured to work more effectively.
I don't really care either way, but...
The flow is already broken up with all of the media time outs. It isn't like they are playing for 20 minutes straight. As an added note currently in Women's NCAA ball there is one under 5:00 media time out in each quarter. So in the first half there are 3 scheduled stoppages in play. In men's there are media time outs at under 16, under 12, under 8 and under 4 so there are 4 scheduled stoppages in play.
Having 2 FTs on the fifth foul each quarter isn't much different than having 2 FTs on the tenth foul each half. What is different is not having 1 and 1s earlier in the period on the seventh, eighth, and ninth foul so it should result in fewer FTs in a half. That should reduce ConMac and Davison crashing into players to get to the line that you are worried about...
It seems like there would be less stoppage w/ quarters, assuming it follows WBB structure. I "worry" there would be eventual move to cram an additional break into each quarter (under 7, under 4) because that's just the way things go. Not like I could control it if it DID happen.
I think some of his suggestions sound better when considering some of his other ideas that are mentioned in the column. For example, he mentions that the lane should have been widened when the 3 point line was moved and I agree with that.